Intel work is like IT; if you're doing it right, nobody knows you're doing anything at all.

The bar is higher when you do wetworks.

I thought there was a list of this sort of counter terrorism successes, apparently there is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist...

Now go through them and weed out the plots that were actually sting operations where all the motivation, allies, funding and training came from three letter agencies in a million dollar operation to trick an angry young Muslim man into building a bomb instead of just graffitiing walls with ACAB.

I recall reading stories reporting that this was happening not long after 9/11. Do you have any other links to share?

The Intercept is a good source for these stories. Just add their domain/site name to your search queries.

They haven't provide proof that it is effective.

This is the correct assessment. It is on those making claims that require the burden of proof.

The claim is that "sacrificing liberty is providing us more safety" __not__ "our sacrifice of liberty has been ineffective at providing more safety." The latter statement comes from the lack of proof from those that carry the requisite burden. The former claims were made when liberty was initially eroded. Now that we have had time and calmed down people are asking "was it worth it?" and no one has provided a compelling "yes, here's (with evidence) why".

Under the section "Surveillance Failures Brought to Light"

Surveillance sometimes fails != surveillance never works... obviously.

There isn't any, but that doesn't mean I appreciate the USA PATRIOT Act or other likewise extra-Constitutional, domestic surveillance BS.

The problem is that effectiveness is not falsafiable. There is no real way to know what attacks would have occurred without the surveillance laws.

We can look at the types of things that have been caught during this period and how. Using that we can get an idea of what kind of threat are out there and it's mostly a) successful lone wolves who don't get caught and b) troubled people who get into a plot made entirely of FBI informants/agents from start to finish.

I agree - the article does a horrible job of proving this case, it merely mentions a mysterious 'panel' and an 'independant' commission's study.

The problem is that this article, and the resopnses to it, are focusing on the wrong thing: The efficacy of violating ones consitiutional rights should have no bearing on wether or not that violation is legal.

Maybe you didn't read thoroughly? They brought an objective expert, and she said it could be ineffective but it's hard to tell because of reasons.